Mythbusters: Federer-Nadal Edition

After swapping some mildly critical words at the start of the Australian Open, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer will renew their on-court rivalry Thursday, in the first of two men’s semifinals. Nearly as cherished as this great rivalry are certain chestnuts of conventional wisdom about the contrasts between these two all-time greats: Federer is cast as the aggressive net-rusher against Nadal, the powerful yet defensive baseliner. Nadal is seen as mentally stronger and fitter as Federer wilts in matches’ crucial stages. Federer, though, is installed as the betting favorite Thursday in part because the match will be played on hard courts, where he has a winning record against his old rival. Nadal, though, may have the edge because of Federer’s one-handed backhand, and because he is younger and Federer has faded since turning 30 last summer.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Last time they met in Melbourne, Federer was left in tears and Nadal comforted him.

One of these chestnuts might be true, and others were once. But for the most part, they never applied or no longer do. As these two rivals have grappled with each other and with their younger rivals — particularly top-ranked Novak Djokovic and No. 4 Andy Murray, who are playing in Friday’s semifinal — they have adjusted their styles and tactics and confounded the conventional wisdom. The following contrasts certain perceptions about the Federer-Nadal rivalry with the reality.

Perception: Federer has a sizable advantage over Nadal on hard courts, as seen in their most recent meeting, at the World Tour Finals in London, where Federer beat Nadal in straight sets whole dropping just three games.

Reality: This might be true on indoor hard courts, or fast outdoor hard courts. On those, Nadal is highly vulnerable. Federer’s 4-0 lifetime record against Nadal indoors, while dropping just one set and never being forced to a tiebreaker, is more one-sided than Nadal’s formidable lead over Federer in their clay matches.

Nadal isn’t just vulnerable to Federer’s booming serves and skidding slices indoors or on speedy hard courts — he isn’t nearly as dominant against anyone on those. Just one of his 46 career titles has come at a hard-court tournament where the stats suggest the court was fast, because servers win more points than average: at Tokyo in 2010. One other — at Madrid in 2005, when it was held indoors — may also fit the bill; court speeds aren’t available for it. At neither tournament did Nadal beat a Top 10 player.

But on slow hard courts, Nadal lives up to his long-time Top Four ranking, if not quite the No. 2 ranking he’s held for so much of the past seven years, largely due to his clay-court dominance. At hard-court tournaments where servers win fewer points than average, which includes the Australian Open and the U.S. Open, Nadal often contends and sometimes wins. He’s reached at least the semifinals in seven of the last nine majors in Melbourne and Flushing, and the quarterfinals at the other two. And against Federer on slow hard courts, which has been the surface for all five of their outdoor hard-court meetings, Nadal is 4-1. Federer’s only win came in Miami in 2005, in a five-set thriller that Federer almost lost in straight sets. Back in Miami six years later, Nadal dominated Federer like he’s seldom done, in their last match on outdoor hard courts and one that might bear on tomorrow’s result more than Federer’s command performance in November in London.

Another reason that latest London result doesn’t mean much: Federer has won two straight against Nadal just twice, and not since 2007. Each of his slender two-match winning streaks came when he got to play Nadal on the grass at Wimbledon and then indoors at the ATP World Tour Finals. This time the slow Melbourne courts won’t play as much to his advantage.

Perception: Federer rushes the net to attack, while Nadal stays at the baseline to defend. Federer’s old-school game matches his old age, and aging hasn’t been kind to him: He isn’t as good as in his major-winning days.

Reality: This sometimes is true when they meet — it was the last time they did, at the French Open final last year — but it isn’t a good overall description of their games. Nadal has become one of the tour’s best volleyers, and is eager to get to net to end points. He has done so on one of every seven 12.4 points at the Australian Open, and won the point 79% of the time, with his quick hands, soft touch and nearly automatic overhead.

Meanwhile, Federer remains comfortable at net, but he’s been there on just one of eight points in the tournament, and won the point 68% of the time. He has gotten more comfortable from the baseline than he was when shanking many shots over recent years.

Seven-time major champion and Eurosport commentator Mats Wilander probably is overstating the case when he said this week that the Federer of today wouldn’t drop a set against the three-major-champion Federer of 2007. But it’s true that Federer last year, despite not winning a major last year for the first time since 2002, may have been in his best form since 2007. He bettered his record and his dominance ratio, or the ratio of percentage of points he won on return to the percentage of points his opponents won returning his serve, for each year from 2008 to 2010. He won four Grand Slam tournaments in those four years. This is even more impressive because Murray and in particular Djokovic have become tougher rivals during that span.

Perception: Federer is weaker mentally and physically than Nadal, and this manifests itself most when they play each other.

Nadal isn’t far behind at 62%, but he trails No. 2 Djokovic, 14-time major champion Pete Sampras, former No. 1 Andy Roddick and even John Isner. Isner is so high on the list in large part because his return is weak enough to get him into tiebreaks against players who aren’t ranked very high. Federer’s prowess in tiebreaks is the real deal, though: Against Top 10 players in his career, he has won a staggering 62% of tiebreaks (excluding Davis Cup matches, which haven’t yet made it into tennisabstract.com, tennis-stats guru Jeff Sackmann’s new sortable, searchable database of men’s match results). Federer won his lone tiebreaker here against Ivo Karlovic with a brilliant lob, while Nadal split a pair with Tomas Berdych, nearly dropping both but saving a set point in the second. Nadal has won 57% of career tiebreakers against Top 10 players.

Federer also is 9-9 career in tiebreaks vs. Nadal, much better than his overall record of 9-17 against his rival. That head-to-head record also obscures Federer’s greater propensity to dominate sets when they play. He’s taken seven 6-0 or 6-1 matches against Nadal, while Nadal has taken five such sets against Federer. Five of those dominant sets of Federer’s have come in the final set of the match, a sign that Nadal was fading, mentally or physically. Just two of Nadal’s wins against Federer have ended with such lopsided sets; the 9-7 classic in the fifth set of Nadal’s 2008 triumph against Federer was more the norm. Outside of their head-to-head results, Nadal has been dominated more often than Federer by other opponents, as measured by the number of times since each has ascended to the top five that he has a winning percentage on return points that is less than 75% the percentage of return points his opponent has won. Nadal has 27 such career losses to players other than Federer, while Federer has just eight such big losses, despite being five years older and playing many more matches while being ranked in the top five.

As for fitness, Nadal’s prowess in best-of-five matches with Federer is often cited as evidence of his superiority: He is 9-3 in those. But he is just 2-3 off his favored clay. Which leads us to the one perception that may be rooted in reality:

Perception: Nadal’s edge in their head-to-head is based in large part on how his topspin forehand troubles Federer’s one-handed backhand.

Reality: This is difficult to test, as it’s impossible to say what sort of player Federer would be if he used his left hand on his backhand. For one thing, he might not win matches earlier in the tournament that allow him to reach finals against Nadal. But there are reasons to think Nadal eats up one-handed backhands.

First, there’s the evidence of the eyes: His big forehands hop up and away from Federer, especially on clay, and make him hit awkward shots and get out of position. This, more than mental weakness in Federer, may explain why Federer has done so poorly in break-point opportunities against Nadal

Then there’s Nadal’s record against other players with one-handers: He’s won 90% of 60 career matches against eight of the best current right-handed players other than Federer to play with one-handed backhands, while dropping just 37 sets. (They are Nicolas Almagro, Richard Gasquet, Stanislas Wawrinka, Ivan Ljubicic, Mikhail Youzhny, Philipp Kohlschreiber, Albert Montanes and Ivo Karlovic. All six of the group’s wins against Nadal have come on hard courts.)

And the third piece of evidence is that Djokovic — who is Nadal’s current nemesis, having won their last six meetings — has thrived in their matches by countering Nadal’s forehand with his two-handed backhand.

This edge of Nadal’s over Federer is greatest on clay, where the ball bounces higher, but it also translates to slow hard courts. That may give him the slight edge in Thursday’s match. But then, his edge over Federer is never as extreme as their head-to-head record would suggest. Even though most of their meetings have come on clay, Nadal has won just 2% more of his return points than Federer has won against Nadal. They might not repeat their five-set classic from last time they met in Melbourne, but the matchup looks as close as ever.

Comments (5 of 13)

M, you're quite right -- I was using points won for Nadal, not all points. The Australian Open site lists total points won as "total point," hence the confusion (I got Federer's numbers from the match stats). So Federer was going into net a bit more than Nadal before they met in the semis, but Nadal was more often successful when he did venture forward.

8:47 pm February 2, 2012

M. wrote:

I found them on australianopen.com, I looked at the stats for each match he played. 535 is the number of points Nadal won not the number of points he played.
Vs Kuznetsov 137 pts played/ 88 pts won; vs Haas 174 pts played/ 96 won; vs Lacko 146 /89; vs Lopez 180 /105; vs Berdych 304 /157.
So it's 941 points played and 535 points won for 76 net approaches.
Federer played 729 points, won 425 and made 90 net approaches. So I don't think Nadal was going to the net more often than Federer.

6:18 pm February 2, 2012

Carl Bialik wrote:

OJ -- I meant by that, among those hard-court tournaments where servers win fewer points than the average across all tournaments on all surfaces. Follow the link -- some, in fact many, hard courts are now slower than average courts, including the Australian Open and, by a small margin, the US Open.

Interesting read but It seems there's some mistake here: "Nadal ...and is eager to get to net to end points. He has done so on one of every seven points at the Australian Open"
According to the stats of all his matches before the semis, Nadal went to the net 76 times for 941 points played, so he went to the net on one of every 12/13 points, not seven.
Fed indeed went to the net on one of every eight points.

9:49 pm January 26, 2012

Mac wrote:

Why split hairs with all this talk of slow and fast hard courts. Aren't grass courts the fastest of all? And clay the slowest? And hasn't Nadal won more Wimbledon titles than Federer has won at French Open?

SPORTS, THE JOURNAL WAY

Be sure to check your Daily Fix all week long. The Fix's daily rundown of the best sportswriting on the Web is joined by features such as The Count, a look at the most revealing sports stats, as well as regular live reports of major sports events. Tell us what you think of the Fix at dailyfixlinks@gmail.com.

In baseball, there is a long-standing tradition of pro teams inviting college teams to play them in preseason exhibitions. A look at this odd tradition, and the awkward, no-win situations it creates for the pros.